IMPACT: International Journal of Research in

Business Management (IMPACT: IJRBM)

ISSN (P): 2347-4572; ISSN (E): 2321-886X
Vol. 6, Issue 8, Aug 2018, 11-32
© Impact Journals

AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE, SATISFACTION, MOTIVATION,

RELATEDNESS, AND JOB PERFORMANCE AMONG MUNICIPALITIES EMPLOYEE IN
PALESTINE

Ayman A. Almusaddar1, Sara Ravan Ramzan2 & Valliappan Raju3

1
Research Scholar, Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, Cyberjaya, Malaysia
2,3
Senior Lecturer, Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, Cyberjaya, Malaysia

Received: 31 Jul 2018 Accepted: 10 Aug 2018 Published: 18 Aug 2018

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between knowledge, satisfaction, and motivation on
employee performance when mediated by relatedness. The sample used in this study consisted of 252 responses from
Palestinian municipalities. The data were collected through structured questionnaire. The study used Partial Least Square
(PLS) analysis technique using the Smart-PLS.3 software. Findings confirmed that relatedness, knowledge, motivation,
and satisfaction were the key constructs for promoting performance among municipalities employee in Palestine.
Furthermore, the importance-performance matrix analysis (IPMA) has shown that relatedness was the most important
factor. Where, the relatedness was the most influential factor in the prediction of employee performance followed by
motivation, satisfaction, and knowledge respectively. The municipalities must focus on how to provide relatedness and
promote motivation, satisfaction, and knowledge at municipalities. Also, the study results stated that relatedness mediates
the relationship between knowledge and performance; motivation and performance; and satisfaction and performance.

KEYWORDS: Knowledge, Motivation, Satisfaction, Performance, Relatedness

INTRODUCTION

Job performance considered as a cornerstone of organizational structure that built on satisfaction, motivation, and
knowledge. Most importantly, job performance measure, which may be based on an absolute value or a relative judgment,
can be generalized to the overall organizational performance (Salama et al, 2017; & Al Shobaki, &Naser, 2016; Enshassi,
&Kullab, 2014). Where, cognitive aptitude and abilities were very important in predicting the level of performance,
and motivational process, satisfaction, knowledge, and employee’s perception were linked to individual differences in
performance outcome (Roeser et al, 2002; Kell and Lang, 2017). Therefore, need for relatedness emerged as more salient
in comparison to needs of learning and performance. Relatedness is concerned with the feeling of being connected to
people and the sense of belonging to a community or social milieu (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Where, relatedness needs include the need for belonging and the need for external respect regarding family,
colleagues, friends, and employers (Giang & Nguyen, 2017). Grant and Parker has further focused on the importance of
relatedness in the workplace, with Grant emphasizing the importance of having jobs in which the employees understand
how their work benefits others and Parker focusing more on the employee outcomes of learning, and development,
health and well-being, and flexibility, all of which have been found to result when employees are more autonomously

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 12 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

motivated and experience greater satisfaction of the needs for relatedness (Grant, 2007; Parker, 2017).

Hon (2012) stated that when managers were supportive of autonomy and coworkers were supportive of
relatedness, the employees were more autonomously motivated and more creative in their work. Moreover, by engaging in
playful and fun relationships with colleagues, playful work design may also fulfill the need for relatedness
(Robert and Wilbanks 2012; Sailer et al. 2017).

Furthermore, both of Hombrados-Mendieta and Cosano-Rivas (2013) stated that workplace support
(need for relatedness) protects against the negative effects of burnout. In the current study need for relatedness is defined as
feeling connected to people and the sense of well-being and belonging to a community. The definition is equivalent to
feeling socially integrated of Fredrickson (2013).Therefore the need for relatedness can be related to the experience of
becoming more socially integrated.

The results of Parker, 2017; Sailer, 2017; Hombrados-Mendieta et al, 2013) facilitate to us proposing that need of
relatedness may mediate the relationships between job satisfaction, job motivation, job knowledge, and job performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Self-determination theory (SDT) is an empirically based, organismic theory of human behavior and personality
development. SDT’s analysis is focused primarily at the psychological level, and it differentiates types of motivation along
with a continuum from controlled to autonomous (Ryan and Deci, 2017).

Recent studies indicated that there are several factors playing role in raising the level of job performance such as
motivation, satisfaction and job knowledge (Kuvvas et al, 2016; Kianto, Vanhala and Heilmann 2016; ÖLÇER, 2015;
Olafsen, Halvari, Forest, &Deci, 2015).

Where, Self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that the social environment influences intrinsic motivation
through its impact on need satisfaction or perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan and Deci, 2017).
Furthermore, a recent study by Kuvaas et al (2016) reported a strong relationship between intrinsic motivation and
self-reported work performance among typical knowledge-workers.

Relatedness

Relatedness considered the third factor of SDT that discussed by Deci& Ryan that concerns feeling socially
connected. People feel relatedness most typically when they feel cared for by others. Yet relatedness is also about
belonging and feeling significant among others (Ryan &Deci, 2017; Deci et al, 2017). Thus equally important to
relatedness is experiencing oneself as giving or contributing to others (Deci& Ryan, 2014). Relatedness pertains,
moreover, to a sense of being integral to social organizations beyond oneself, or, both by feeling connected to close others
and by being a significant member of social groups, people experience relatedness and belonging, for example through
contributing to the group or showing benevolence.

H1: Relatedness is significantly influenced job performance.

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 13
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

Job knowledge

Job knowledge considered an essential factor in determining the employment eligibility for a specific job in any
organization. Thus, job knowledge used for staff selection, recruitment, placement, training and development in different
organizations as mentioned by Kuvvas et al (2016). In industry, written job knowledge tests are used for candidate
selection, job placement, and organizational advancement (Palumbo et al, 2005; Dover, 2016).

The current organizational structure defines job knowledge as technical information, facts, and procedures
required to do the job (Hunter, 1993), where Landy et al (2017) assessed job knowledge through “written measures of
facts, principles, and so forth, needed to perform the job .“

H2: Job knowledge is significantly influences job performance.

H3: Job knowledge is significantly influences relatedness.

H4: Relatedness significantly mediates the relationship between job knowledge and job performance.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction defined as “feelings or affective responses to facets of the (workplace) situation” (Smith et al,
1969). In other words, it means your internal responses and acceptance for the work (i.e are you enjoyed the work? Are
you satisfied and accepted your chance?). Where Locke (1976) stated that pleasurable state of mind and emotional status
that arises due to appraisal from managers or the good job is done. According to Kraut (1998), job satisfaction can be
defined as the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs.

In the recent studies, job satisfaction has been defined as a concept that includes all characteristics of the job and
works environment that is rewarding, satisfying and fulfilling for employees (Boles et al., 2009). Job satisfaction refers to
the state in which employees take pleasure from their work,or the positive and emotional state of the employee after
appraisal of his or her job and performance (Shaikh et al., 2012).

H5: Job satisfaction is significantly influences job performance.

H6: Job satisfaction is significantly influences relatedness.

H7: Relatedness significantly mediates the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.

Job Motivation

Motivation is considered a human drive to do something or task effectively with joy and pleasure during the act of
the required task. Kant et al (2002) stated that motives drive human activities and the motive must be of a certain kind
(Kant, Wood &Schneewind, 2002).

Whereas, Deci and Ryan (2000) proposed that the motivation that is the focus in expectancy theory is of an
extrinsic nature since it refers to performing an activity with the intention of attaining positive consequences
(e.g., obtaining a reward) or avoiding negative consequences (e.g. avoiding a punishment).

Motivation theorists often classify motivation into two different classes: extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as the
different causes that lead to action (Deci, 1972; Scott, Farh, &Podsakoff, 1988).

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 14 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

H8: Job Motivation is significantly influences job performance

H9: Job Motivation is significantly influences relatedness.

H10: Relatedness significantly mediates the relationship between job motivation and job performance.

Job Performance

Murphy stated that Job performance, or “the set of behaviors that are relevant to the goals of the organization or
the organizational unit in which a person works”, remains a primary concern for organizational behavior researchers
(Murphy, 1988) .

Where Motowidlo and his colleagues (1997) say that rather than solely the behaviors themselves, performance is
behaviors with an evaluativeaspect.This definition is consistent with the dominant methods used to measure job
performance, namely performance ratings from supervisors and peers (Newman, 2004).

Furthermore, due to the significance of job performance in different fields and jobs, where high quality is very important, it
is highlighted in various studies that concerned with job performance. Job performance classified as task performance and
contextual performance as suggested by (Motowidlo et al, 1997) that performance can be divided into two parts, task, and
contextual performance.

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework Model

METHODS
Research Design
This research is a descriptive study that aims to examine the impact of job knowledge, job satisfaction, job
motivation, relatedness and job performance among employees of middle management at the five main municipalities in
Gaza Strip, Palestine. The research was designed in accordance with the principle of cross-sectional study, whereby the
data collection is gathered just once. The independent variables of this research are job knowledge, job satisfaction,
and job motivation, and the dependent variable is job performance, in the light of relatedness as a mediator.
Thus, this study is carried out based on positivist principles (Becker et al,2012), the approach used to examine the

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 15
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

influence of relatedness in the relationship between knowledge, satisfaction, and motivation to improve the performance in
Palestinian Municipalities in Gaza Strip.

Sample Size

The study sample consisted of 252 participants as a convenience sample from the middle managerial staff from
the main 5 local authorities in Gaza Strip. Convenience sampling is defined as a process of data collection from a
population that is close at hand and easily accessible to the researcher (Rahi, 2017). Hair et al (2015) illustrated that
convenience sampling allows the researcher to complete interviews or get responses in a cost-effective way. Comrey and
Lee (1992) stated that sample size of 50 is very poor, while 100 is poor, 200 is reasonable, 300 is good, 500 is very good
and 1000 is brilliant for structural equation modeling. Thus, for this study, the required sample size was 252. Which is
satisfies the required sample size. The data were collected between the months of November 2017 and January 2018.

Measurement of Variables/Instrumentation

The instruments of the study were consisted of two parts. Firstly, the demographiccharacteristic like age, gender,
educational level, experience years and monthly income. Secondly, the study constructs that include; job knowledge, job
satisfaction, job motivation and job performance and relatedness.

The constructs items were adapted from previous research work as follow:-

Job Knowledge Scale: Adopted from Work Design Questionnaire (Morgeson and Humphery, 2006).
All responses were measured on seven-point Likert scale, “1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree”. The scale used by
various studies such as Ríos et al (2017).

Job satisfaction Scale: Adopted from the generic satisfaction scale Job satisfaction (Macdonald & Maclntyre,
1997). The responses were measured on seven-point Likert scale, “1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree”, with higher
scores indicating more job satisfaction. The scale used by Chauhan and Solanki, (2014)to study "A Comparative Study of
Job Satisfaction in Government and Private Employees"

Job Motivation: Adopted from the situational motivational scale by Guay, Vallerand, and Blanchard (2000).
The responses were measured on seven-point Likert scale: 1: corresponds not all; 2: corresponds a very little; 3:
corresponds a little; 4: corresponds moderately; 5: corresponds enough; 6: corresponds a lot; 7: corresponds exactly. The
scale validated by Gamboa et al (2017) and Clancy et al (2017).

Relatedness: Adopted from basic psychological need (at work) scale for Deci& Ryan (2000); Deci et al (2001);
and Ryan & Deci (2017). The responses were measured on seven-point Likert scale, “1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly
agree”. The scale consisted of 7 item representing relatedness.

Job Performance: Adopted from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) for task performance and Motowidlo and Van
Scotter (1994) for contextual performance. The responses were measured on seven-point Likert scale, “1=strongly disagree
to 7=strongly agree”.The measures were used by current studies such as Parrish (2016); Pradhan, & Jena (2016).Poursafar
et al (2014).

Data Analysis

The researcher used Partial Least Square (PLS) analysis technique using the SmartPLS3.0 software (Ringle et al.,

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 16 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

2015). Following the two-stage analytical procedure, researchers tested the measurement model (validity and reliability of
the measures) and structural model (Hypothesis testing) recommended by Hair Jr et al. (2014).

DATA ANALYSIS
Part –One: Assessment of Measurement Model
Instrument Validity and Reliability

In order to test the validity and reliability of the constructs (latent variables), the researcher used assessment of the
measurement model according to smart PLS 3, that consisted of two approaches which are convergent validity and
discriminant validity.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity specifies that items that are indicators of a construct should share a high proportion of
variance (Hair et al., 2014). The convergent validity of the scale items was assessed using three criteria. First, the factor
loadings should be greater than 0.50 as proposed by Hair et al. (2014). Secondly, the composite reliability for each
construct should exceed 0.70. Lastly, the Average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct should be above the
recommended cut-off 0.50 (Fornell and Larker, 1981).

To check convergent validity, the researcher generated smart PLS using PLS Algorithm and reported outer
loading of each construct variables, indicator reliability, composite reliability, and each latent variable’s Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) is evaluated table (1).

Table 1: Results Summary of Reflective Outer Model

Indicator Reliability
Construct Item Loading AVE CR
(loading2)
Relatedness 0.626 0.930
I really like the people I work with. Sdt2R1 0.836 0.698
I get along with people at work. Sdt6R2 0.771 0.594
I consider the people I work with to be my
Sdt9R4 0.822 0.675
friends.
Job knowledge 0.626 0.930
The job requires that I engage in a large amount
Jk6 0.703 0.500
of thinking.
The job requires me to be creative Jk10 0.744 0.553
The job requires unique ideas or solutions to
Jk12 0.810 0.656
problems
The job requires a variety of skills Jk13 0.864 0.746
The job requires me to utilize a variety of
Jk14 0.874 0.763
different skills in order to complete the work
The job requires the use of a number of skills Jk16 0.861 0.741
The job is highly specialized in terms of
Jk17 0.710 0.504
purpose, tasks, or activities
The job requires very specialized knowledge
Jk19 0.741 0.549
and skills.
Job motivation 0.615 0.910
I think that this activity is interesting Jm1 0.747 0.558
I think that this activity is pleasant Jm5 0.810 0.656

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 17
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

Table 1:Contd.,
I think that this activity is good for me Jm6 0.826 0.682
It is something that I have to do Jm7 0.806 0.649
I feel good when doing this activity Jm13 0.733 0.537
I believe that this activity is important for me Jm14 0.789 0.622
I feel that I have to do it Jm15 0.772 0.595
Job performance 0.635 0.941
Adequately completes assigned duties Jp1 0.851 0.724
Fulfills responsibilities specified in job
Jp2 0.753 0.567
description
Performs tasks that are expected of me Jp3 0.820 0.672
Cooperate with others in the team Jp9 0.788 0.620
Persist in overcoming obstacles to complete a
Jp10 0.862 0.743
task
Display proper company appearance and
Jp11 0.809 0.564
manner
Pay close attention to important details Jp16 0.725 0.525
Take the initiative to solve a work task Jp20 0.780 0.608
Exercise personal discipline and self-control Jp21 0.761 0.579
Tackle a difficult work assignment
Jp22 0.808 0.652
enthusiastically
Job satisfaction 0.764 0.866
All my talents and skills are used at work Js8 0.881 0.776
I get along with my supervisors Js9 0.867 0.751

From the above-illustrated table, we found:-

• Individual Item Reliability (Loading): the results denoted that the items outer loading is above the cut-off
0.708, and the indicator reliability for each item is above 0.50. Hair et al (2014) asserted that an indicator's outer
loading should be above 0.708 since that number squared (0.708)2 equals 0.50, in which in the most instances,
0.70 is considered close enough to 0.708 to be acceptable.

• Indicator Reliability (Loading2): the indicator reliability for the outer loading is above the cut-off 0.50 when the
numbers of outer loading items squared.

• Composite Reliability (CR): The composite reliability for the constructs are acceptable for each latent variable
and confirmed with the cut-off value >0.70.

Such values are shown to be larger than 0.70, so high levels of internal consistency reliability have been
demonstrated among all reflective latent variables.

Composite reliability values of 0.60 to 0.70 are acceptable in exploratory research, while in more advanced stage
research, values between 0.70 and 0.90 can be satisfactory (Hair et al, 2014).

Prior research suggests that a threshold level of 0.60 or higher is required to demonstrate a satisfactory composite
reliability in exploratory research (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) but not exceeding the 0.97 level (Hair et al., 2013).

• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): It is found that all of the AVE values are greater than the acceptable
threshold of 0.5, so convergent validity is confirmed. Figure (2) illustrate model loading.

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 18 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

Figure 2: Model Loading

Discriminant Validity
Cross Loading

One method for assessing discriminant validity is by examining the cross-loadings of the indicators. Specifically,
an indicator's outer loading on the associated construct should be greater than all of its loadings on other constructs
(Hair et al, 2014). The researcher conducted smart PLS through PLS algorithm and select discriminant validity report.
The following table illustrates the crossing loading of indicators.

Table 2: Cross Loading of the Latent Variables

JM JP JS Relatedness JK
jk10 0.322 0.476 0.432 0.295 0.744
jk12 0.378 0.482 0.422 0.262 0.810
jk13 0.386 0.491 0.527 0.314 0.864
jk14 0.371 0.472 0.503 0.330 0.874
jk16 0.434 0.493 0.475 0.279 0.861
jk17 0.381 0.428 0.501 0.297 0.710
jk19 0.420 0.406 0.485 0.273 0.741
jk6 0.324 0.422 0.396 0.166 0.703
jm1 0.747 0.509 0.458 0.420 0.433
jm13 0.733 0.302 0.256 0.246 0.321
jm14 0.789 0.354 0.383 0.249 0.406
jm15 0.772 0.457 0.350 0.334 0.313
jm5 0.810 0.367 0.432 0.186 0.377
jm6 0.826 0.358 0.491 0.226 0.370
jm7 0.806 0.383 0.412 0.287 0.367
jp1 0.420 0.851 0.589 0.568 0.467
jp10 0.388 0.862 0.474 0.586 0.478
jp11 0.467 0.809 0.523 0.601 0.437
jp16 0.372 0.725 0.467 0.493 0.423
jp2 0.456 0.753 0.535 0.533 0.435
jp20 0.441 0.780 0.528 0.609 0.479
jp21 0.331 0.761 0.506 0.529 0.437
jp22 0.399 0.808 0.554 0.481 0.533

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 19
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

Table 2: Contd.,
jp3 0.432 0.820 0.535 0.543 0.454
jp9 0.380 0.788 0.450 0.542 0.487
js8 0.444 0.582 0.881 0.355 0.508
js9 0.454 0.552 0.867 0.337 0.527
sdt2R1 0.322 0.562 0.301 0.836 0.281
sdt6R2 0.302 0.581 0.314 0.771 0.321
sdt9R4 0.282 0.532 0.348 0.822 0.255

Analyzing the above table, it clearly states that the indicator's outer loading on the associated construct is greater
than all of its loadings on other constructs. In principle, this means the model has discriminant validity based on the Chin
criteria (1998).

Fornell and Larcker Criterion: Variable Correlation

The Fornell-Larcker criterion(1981) is a second and more conservative approach to assessing discriminant
validity. It compares the square root of the AVE values with the latent variable correlations. Specifically, the square root of
each construct's AVE should be greater than its highest correlation with any other construct(Hair et al, 2014). The
following table demonstrates the Fornnel and Larcker criterion results:

Table 3: Fornell and Larcker Criterion Analysis

Construct Discriminant Validity met?
JM JP JS Relatedness JK
LVC (Square root of AVE>LVC?)
JM 0.784 Yes
JP 0.515 0.797 Yes
JS 0.514 0.649 0.874 Yes
Relatedness 0.373 0.690 0.396 0.810 Yes
JK 0.476 0.582 0.592 0.354 0.791 Yes

Note: The square root of AVE values is shown on the diagonal and printed in bold; non-diagonal elements are the
latent variable correlations (LVC).

From the table, the latent variable Job Motivation (JM) AVE is found to be 0.615 (from Table 1) hence its square
root becomes 0.784. This number is larger than the correlation values in the column of JM (0.513, 0.513, and 0.476) and
also larger than those in the row of JM (0.407). A similar observation is also made for the latent variables relatedness, JK,
JP, and JS. The result indicates that discriminant validity is well established.

Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

Henseler et al. (2015) suggested another way to assess discriminant validity through a multi-trait and multi-
method matrix, namely the Hetero-trait Mono-trait Ratio (HTMT). There are two ways of using the HTMT approach to
assess the discriminant validity. At first, when using it as a criterion, if the HTMT value is greater than 0.85, then there is a
problem with discriminant validity. Secondly, by using the statistical test for HTMT inference when the confidence
interval of HTMT values for the structural paths contains the value if 1, it indicates a lack of discriminant validity. If the
value of 1 falls outside the interval’s range, it suggests that the constructs are empirically distinct. HTMT results can be
seen in the following Table (4).

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 20 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

Table 4: Heterotrait Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

JM JP JS relatedness JK
JM -------
JP 0.542
JS 0.644 0.806
Relatedness 0.435 0.828 0.555
JK 0.522 0.630 0.747 0.427 ----------

Note: Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) discriminate at (HTMT <0.9/ HTMT <0.85)

Based on the results of Table (4), all HTMT values are lower than the required threshold value of HTMT.85 by Kline
(2011) and HTMT of .90 by Gold and ArvindMalhotra (2001), indicating that discriminate validity is valid for this study.
To sum up, both convergent and discriminant validity of the measures were developed.

Part -TWO: Assessment of Structural Model

Measurement model was achieved after conducting validity and reliability analysis. Moving further with Smart
PLS3.0 software (Ringle et al., 2015) structural equation model (SEM) was performed to assess the strength of the
proposed model for this study. In order to assess the structural model lateral collinearity test (VIF), R2values and
corresponding t-values were evaluated as suggested by Hair et al. (2016). The proposed hypothesis was tested by running a
bootstrapping procedure with a resample of 5000, as suggested by Hair et al. (2014).

Collinearity Assessment

At first stage of structural equation model, lateral collinearity was assessed with collinearity statistics VIF.
According to Kock and Lynn (2012), although vertical collinearity is met, lateral collinearity (predictor- criterion
collinearity) may sometimes be misleading the findings. This type of collinearity has occurred when two variables that are
hypothesized to be causally related measure the same construct. This type of collinearity is assessed with VIF values,
where the values of VIF 3.3 or higher, indicate a potential collinearity (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Table (5) shows
the results of VIF values.

Table 5: Collinearity Assessment

DV-
Collinearity Issues
PERFORMANCE
JM 1.499 No collinearity
JP ……….. ……………..
JS 1.783 No collinearity
Relatedness 1.260 No collinearity
JK 1.663 No collinearity

As presented in Table (5) the inner VIF values of the independent variables (JK, JM, and JS) that needs to be
examined for multi-collinearity are less than 5 and 3.3, indicating lateral multi-collinearity is not a concern in this study
according to Hair et al. (2014).

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 21
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

Path Coefficient: Hypothesis Testing

The hypothesis developed for this study was tested by running a bootstrapping procedure with a resample of 5000,
as suggested by Hair et al. (2014). The results of Table (6) depict path coefficients of respective constructs with their level
of significance.

Table 6: Path Coefficient of Research Hypothesis

Hypo. Relationship Std. Beta St.d Error T-value P-value Decision
H1 Knowledge → Performance 0.193 0.059 3.284 0.001 Accepted *
H2 Knowledge → Relatedness 0.130 0.085 1.533 0.125 Rejected
H3 Motivation → Performance 0.093 0.045 2.070 0.039 Accepted
H4 Motivation → relatedness 0.200 0.063 2.598 0.009 Accepted *
H5 Satisfaction → Performance 0.302 0.063 4.770 0.000 Accepted **
H6 Satisfaction → relatedness 0.216 0.085 2.555 0.011 Accepted**
H7 Relatedness → Performance 0.468 0.055 8.497 0.000 Accepted **
Significant at P** <0.01, P* <0.05

Table (6) depicts that the relationship between knowledge to performance is supported by H1: (β = 0.193, p<
0.01). Next, the relationship between knowledge to relatedness is rejected by H2: (β = 0.130, p> 0.05). H3 showed that the
relationship between JM and performance is rejected by ((β = 0.093, p> 0.05); where the relationship between motivation
and relatedness is accepted by H4 ((β = 0.200, p< 0.05).

Figure 3: Path Coefficient of the Study Variables

The results revealed that the relationship between satisfaction and performance is accepted by H5 (β = 0.302, p<
0.001); and the relationship between satisfaction to relatedness is accepted by H6 (β = 0.216, p< 0.01). Furthermore, the
results revealed that; the relationship between relatedness to performance is supported by H7 (β = 0.468, p< 0.001).
see figure (3).

Coefficient of Determination (R2) and Predictive Relevance Q2

A major part of the structural model evaluation is the assessment of coefficient of determination (R2). A threshold
value of 0.25, 0.5 and 0.7 are often used to describe a weak, moderate, and strong coefficient of determination
(Hair at el., 2014). Furthermore, An assessment of Stone-Geisser’s predictive relevance (Q2) is important because it checks

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 22 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

if the data points of indicators in the reflective measurement model of the endogenous construct can be predicted
accurately. The researcher conducted PLS Algorithm and reported the following results, table (7).

Table 7: R-Square of the Endogenous Latent Variables

R-Square of the Endogenous Variables Predictive relevance Q2
Construct R2 Results Q2 Results
Performance 0.679 Strong 0.405 >0
Relatedness 0.206 Moderate .119 >0

It is observed from the above table (7) that the proposed model has good predictive relevance for all of the
endogenous variables. In general, R2 values of 0.75, 0.50, or 0.25 for the endogenous constructs can be described as
respectively substantial, moderate, and weak (Hair et al,, 2014).

The table denoted that, the proposed model has good predictive relevance for all of the endogenous variables.
Chin (1998) suggests that a model demonstrates good predictive relevance when its Q2 value is larger than zero.
By other words,The resulting Q2 values larger than 0 indicate that the exogenous constructs have predictive relevance for
the endogenous construct under consideration (Hair et al, 2014).

Effect Size f2

The effect size f2 allows assessing an exogenous construct's contribution to an endogenous latent variable's R2
value. According to Cohen (1988)and Hair et al (2014), the f2 values of less than 0.02 (no effect), 0.02-0.15 (small effect),
0.15-0.35 (medium) and above 0.35 (large effect) indicate an exogenous construct's on an endogenous construct.

Table 8: R-Square of the endogenous latent variables

Effect size f2 Performance
Construct f2 Results
Knowledge 0.070 Small effect size
Motivation 0.018 Small effect size
Satisfaction 0.159 Small effect size
Relatedness 0.541 Large effect size

From the above table (8), the results denoted that the exogenous variables (knowledge, motivation, and
satisfaction) have small effect size, where relatedness has large effect size.

Importance Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA)

A post-hoc importance-performance matrix analysis (IPMA) was performed by using JOB PERFORMANCE as
target construct. The IPMA builds on the PLS estimates of the structural equation model relationship and includes an
additional dimension to the analysis of that latent constructs (Hair et al., 2016). The importance scores were carried from
the total effects of outcome variable in the structural equation model. While performance score or index was derived by
rescaling the latent variables score ranges from 0 for the lowest to 100 for the highest (Hair et al., 2016). Table (8) presents
the total effects (importance) and index values (performance) used for the importance-performance matrix analysis.

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 23
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

Table 8: Importance Performance Matrix Analysis

Total effect of LV Index Values
Latent Variable
PERFORM Performance
Importance LV index values LV performances
1. JM 0.187 5.041 67.358
2. JP Target DV 5.914 81.932
3. JS 0.403 5.581 76.343
4. Relatedness 0.468 5.576 77.265
5. JK 0.254 5.522 75.374

Figure 4: Importance Performance Matrix Analysis IPMA

Table (8) shows the indexvalues

values and totaleffect
total scores. It can be seen that relatedness is the most important factor
in order to determine the performance due to higher importance values (0.468)
(0. ) compared to other latent variables.
Satisfaction
atisfaction is coming at intermediate level with (0.403),
(0.40 knowledge (0.254), motivation(0.18
(0.187). The level of importance
and performance can be seen in Figure.. 4.

Importance-performance
performance matrix denoted that, the relatedness has the highest level to influence performance
followed by satisfaction, knowledge, motivation. This means, to achieve the high performance we should focus on
improving the performance of relatedness and satisfaction.

Relatedness as Mediator

To understand the role of relatedness in the study model, its potential mediating effect on the linkage between
(knowledge an performance); (motivation and performance); and (satisfaction and performance). The researcher divided
the variables as follow:-

• H7: IV (Knowledge) → MV (relatedness

relatedness)→ DV Performance

• H8: IV (Satisfaction) → MV (relatedness

relatedness) → DV Performance

• H9: IV (Motivation) → MV (relatedness

relatedness) → DV performance

The researcher adopted the Preacher and Hayes (2008) procedure, which is used instead of the traditional Sobel
(1982) test because it does not have strict distributional assumptions (Hair et al, 2013).

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

 24 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

The Preacher and Hayes (2008) procedure involves the use of bootstrapping in a 2-step procedure:
(i) The significance of direct effect is first checked (if the significance of direct effect cannot be established, there is no
mediating effect) using bootstrapping without the presence of the mediator relatedness in the model; (ii) bootstrapping
Confidence Interval through statistical tool designed for CI calculation for mediation effect. The VAF would be less than
20%, and one can conclude that (almost) no mediation takes place. In contrast, when the VAF has very large outcomes of
above 80%, one can assume a full mediation. A situation in which the VAF is larger than 20% and less than 80% can be
characterized as partial mediation (Hair et al, 2014).The following figure demonstrating,the Excel sheet for calculating
mediation through bootstrapping confidence interval.

(KNOWLEDGE, SATISFACTION AND MOTIVATION) → MV → PERFORMANCE

To understand the role of mediation variable relatedness in the study model, its potential mediating effect on the
linkage between (job knowledge and job performance); (Job motivation and Job performance) (figure, 3). This step
accomplished by using Preacher and Hayes (2008) procedure, which is used instead of Sobel test (1982), the results
demonstrated in the table (9).

Table 9: Mediation Analysis Using PLS

IV
IV.>MV MV.>DV Bootstrap CI
>mediator>PERFOR Indirect
SE t-value
Effect 95% 95%U
IV_ (JK-JS-JM) Path a Path b
LL L
H8 JK>relatedness>DV JP 0.359 0.693 0.249 0.065 3.827 0.121 0.376
H9 JS >relatedness>DV JP 0.397 0.691 0.274 0.064 4.286 0.149 0.400
H10 JM> relatedness>DV JP 0.381 0.692 0.264 0.052 5.070 0.162 0.366

The results denoted that the relationship between (job knowledge to job performance); (job satisfaction to job
performance); and (job motivation to job performance) through the mediating variable (relatedness) was supported since
the lower limit LL and upper limit UL of the confidence interval not crossed by ZERO, it means both are on the same
sides. So, we accept the hypothesis (H8, H9 and H10).

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The study examined the relationship between job knowledge, job motivation, the job satisfaction on job
performance when mediated by relatedness. The study results suggest that the motivation was the most influential factor
after relatedness in the prediction of job performance. However, the study results denoted that relatedness significantly
mediate the relationship between (job knowledge and job performance); (job motivation and job performance); and (job
satisfaction and job performance). Furthermore, the study denoted that knowledge, satisfaction, and motivation
significantly influence employee performance.

Where, Giang& Nguyen (2017) stated that there are three factors among five factors of work motivation which
are Growth needs, Relatedness needs, and Existence needs-pay that play a positive impact to job performance of hotel
employee.

Wu et al (2018) proposed that perceived relatedness exerts a positive effect on job performance. Furthermore,
they stated that employees who have a high level of relatedness with other organizational members tend to view their work

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

 An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 25
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

environment as favorable, which facilitates the attainment of job goals and consequently increases job performance.
Also, relatedness can foster an atmosphere of support and encouragement, leading employees to feel less tension and
stress, and creating a favorable job experience and job outcome

The results of the current study seem to be consistent with other studies but with the same variables,
Kianto, Vanhala and Heilmann ( 2016) stated that the results found that Existence of Knowledge Management processes
in one’s working environment is significantly linked with high job satisfaction. Knowledge characteristics of work design
exhibit a significant effect on both distinct dimensions of work behavior, while task and social characteristics showed
different effects on task and contextual performance, respectively Hernaus and Mikulić (2013). Where, Palumbo (2007)
demonstrated that job knowledge accounted for significantly more variance in task performance than cognitive ability.
Where, Ölçer et al (2015) stated that job satisfaction significantly affected job performance. Furthermore, overall job
satisfaction fully mediated the relationship between meaning and job performance.

Research Contribution:The study significantly contributed to the mediating effect of relatedness in the
relationship between knowledge, motivation, satisfaction, and performance.

Theoretical Contribution: Theoretically, the study contributed by new direction model by presenting relatedness
as a mediator between knowledge, satisfaction, motivation and employee performance. The study results suggest that the
relatedness was the most influential factor in the prediction of employee performance followed by motivation, satisfaction,
and knowledge respectively. Also, the study results stated that relatedness mediates the relationship between knowledge
and performance; motivation and performance; and satisfaction and performance. Furthermore, the proposed model makes
the important contribution to the emerging literature on management regarding employee performance.

Managerial Contribution: The results of the study revealed that performance will increase if the middle
management employees believe that relatedness, motivation, satisfaction and knowledge managed correctly. The
municipalities must focus on how to provide the need of relatedness and promote motivation at municipalities.

Methodological Contribution: The study used Partial Least Square (PLS) analysis technique using the Smart-
PLS 3.2.7 software. Following the two-stage analytical procedure, researcher tested the measurement model (validity and
reliability of the measures) and structural model (Hypothesis testing).

Future Research

The researchers can be built on this model and expand their studies using subscales of the current study variables.
They may use the same variables on other samples such as the universities, non-governmental organizations or private
sectors.

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

26 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

REFERENCES

1. Achmad, S. H. (2017). The Effect of Competency, Motivation, and Organizational Culture on the Employee
Performance At The Jayakarta Hotel, Bandung, Indonesia. Journal of Business on Hospitality and Tourism, 2(1),
120-130.

2. Aima, H., & Ali, H. (2017). Model of Employee Performance: Competence Analysis and Motivation (Case Study
at PT. Bank Bukopin, Tbk Center). Quest Journals Journal of Research in Business and Management, ISSN
(Online), 2347-3002.

3. Al Shobaki, M. J., &Naser, S. S. A. (2016). The reality of modern methods applied in process of performance
assessments of employees in the municipalities in Gaza Strip.

4. Al Shobakib, M. J., Abu Amuna, Y. M., & Abu Naser, S. S. (2017). Organizational Excellence in Palestinian
Universities of Gaza Strip. International Journal of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, 6(4), 20-
30.

5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of
marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.

6. Bakar, R. (2014). The effect of learning motivation on student’s productive competencies in vocational high
school, West Sumatra. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 4(6), 722-732.

7. Becker, S., Bryman, A., & Ferguson, H. (Eds.). (2012). Understanding research for social policy and social work:
themes, methods and approaches. Policy Press.

8. Broussard, S. C., & Garrison, M. B. (2004). The relationship between classroom motivation and academic
achievement in elementary‐school‐aged children. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33(2), 106-
120.

9. Carraher, S. M., Whitney Gibson, J., & Buckley, M. R. (2006). Compensation satisfaction in the Baltics and the
USA. Baltic Journal of Management, 1(1), 7-23.

10. Chauhan, A., &Solanki, P. M. (2014). A Comparative Study of Job Satisfaction in Government and Private
Employees. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 2(1).

11. Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling.

12. Clancy, R. B., Herring, M. P., & Campbell, M. J. (2017). Motivation measures in sport: A critical review and
bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 348.

13. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology Press.

14. de Rooij, Y. C. (2017). Enhancing Well-Being in the Workplace; The role of strengths use and basic needs
fulfillment at work. Tilburg University.

15. De Waal, A. A. (2010). Achieving High Performance in the Public Sector: What Needs to Be Done?. Public
Performance & Management Review, 34(1), 81-103.

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 27
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

16. Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 22(1), 113.

17. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

18. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships: Relationships
motivation theory. In Human motivation and interpersonal relationships (pp. 53-73). Springer, Dordrecht.

19. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a
science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43.

20. Diamantopoulos, A., &Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure
development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263-282.

21. Enshassi, A. A., &Kullab, A. S. (2014). Community participation in local governments: public consulting and
transparency in Gaza Strip, Palestine. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and
Technology, 5(1), 9-21.

22. Enshassi, A., Chatat, T., von Meding, J., & Forino, G. (2017). Factors influencing post-disaster reconstruction
project management for housing provision in the Gaza Strip, Occupied Palestinian Territories. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 8(4), 402-414.

23. F. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121.

24. Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of
Occupational and organizational Psychology, 74(4), 473-487.

25. Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50.

26. Gamboa, V., Valadas, S., &Paixão, O. (2017). Validation of a Portuguese version of the Situational Motivation
Scale (SIMS) in academic contexts. Avances en PsicologíaLatinoamericana, 35(3), 547-557.

27. Giang, N. S. T., & Nguyen, M. T. (2017). An Investigation of the Impact of Interior Design on Job Performance: A
Study on Hospitality Employees in Vietnam. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 7(6), 386.

28. Gillet, N., Colombat, P., Michinov, E., Pronost, A. M., &Fouquereau, E. (2013). Procedural justice, supervisor
autonomy support, work satisfaction, organizational identification and job performance: The mediating role of
need satisfaction and perceived organizational support. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(11), 2560-2571.

29. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., &Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities
perspective. Journal of management information systems, 18(1), 185-214.

30. Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of
management review, 32(2), 393-417.

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

28 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

31. Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting
persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of applied psychology, 93(1), 48.

32. Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and emotion, 24(3), 175-213.

33. Hair Jr, J. F., Wolfinbarger, M., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. J. (2015). Essentials of business
research methods. Routledge.

34. Hair, Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., &Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved
heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I–method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63-76.

35. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., &Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-
based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115-135.

36. Hernaus, T., &Mikulić, J. (2014). Work characteristics and work performance of knowledge workers. EuroMed
Journal of Business, 9(3), 268-292.

37. Hollenbeck, J. R., Noe, R. A., &Gerhart, B. A. (2018). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive
advantage. McGraw-Hill Education.

38. Hombrados-Mendieta, I., &Cosano-Rivas, F. (2013). Burnout, workplace support, job satisfaction and life
satisfaction among social workers in Spain: A structural equation model. International Social Work, 56(2), 228-
246.

39. Hon, A. H. (2012). Shaping environments conductive to creativity: The role of intrinsic motivation. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 53(1), 53-64.

40. Hunter, J. E. (1983). A causal analysis of cognitive ability, job knowledge, job performance, and supervisor
ratings. Performance measurement and theory, 257, 266.

41. Johari, J., &Yahya, K. K. (2012). An Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of Job Performance Measurement
(SatuPenilaianterhadapKebolehpercayaandanKesahanPengukuranPrestasiKerja). JurnalPengurusan (UKM
Journal of Management), 36.

42. Kant, I., &Schneewind, J. B. (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Yale University Press.

43. Kell, H. J., & Lang, J. W. (2017). Specific abilities in the workplace: More important than g?. Journal of
Intelligence, 5(2), 13.

44. Khoirudin, M., & Istiatin, I. (2018). Analisis Budaya Organisasi, Lingkungan Kerjadan Kompetensiterhadap
Kinerja Pegawai di Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Kabupaten Wonogiri. The National Conference on Management
and Business (NCMAB) 2018.

45. Kianto, A., Vanhala, M., & Heilmann, P. (2016). The impact of knowledge management on job
satisfaction. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4), 621-636.

46. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 29
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

47. Kock, N., & Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration
and recommendations.

48. Kraut, A. (1998). Job satisfaction: application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Personnel
Psychology, 51(2), 513.

49. Kumar, M., & Jauhari, H. (2016). Satisfaction of learning, performance, and relatedness needs at work and
employees’ organizational identification. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 65(6), 760-772.

50. Kuvaas, B. (2008). A test of hypotheses derived from self-determination theory among public sector
employees. Employee relations, 31(1), 39-56.

51. Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Gagné, M., Dysvik, A., & Forest, J. (2016). Do you get what you pay for? Sales incentives
and implications for motivation and changes in turnover intention and work effort. Motivation and
Emotion, 40(5), 667-680.

52. Landy, F., Zedeck, S., & Cleveland, J. (2017). Performance measurement and theory. Routledge.

53. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology.

54. Macdonald, S., & Maclntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development and its
correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13(2), 1-16.

55. Menguc, B., Auh, S., Yeniaras, V., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2017). The role of climate: implications for service
employee engagement and customer service performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3),
428-451.

56. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating
a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of applied psychology, 91(6),
1321.

57. Motowildo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual
performance. Human performance, 10(2), 71-83.

58. Murphy, K. R., & Kroeker, L. P. (1988). Dimensions of job performance. Colorado State Univ Fort Collins.

59. Newman, D. A. (2004). Is job (dis) satisfaction contagious? Simultaneous effects of social networks, task
characteristics, and dispositions.

60. Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). How broadly does education contribute to job performance?. Personnel
psychology, 62(1), 89-134.

61. Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H., Forest, J., & Deci, E. L. (2015). Show them the money? The role of pay, managerial
need support, and justice in a self‐determination theory model of intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian journal
of psychology, 56(4), 447-457.

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

30 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

62. Ölçer, F., & Florescu, M. (2015). Mediating effect of job satisfaction in the relationship between psychological
empowerment and job performance. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 22(3), 604.

63. Osei, A. J., & Ackah, O. (2015). Employee’s Competency And Organizational Performance In The
Pharmaceutical Industry. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management United
Kingdom, 3(3).

64. Palumbo, M. V. (2007). Cognitive Ability, Job Knowledge, and Stereotype Threat: When does Adverse Impact
Result? (Doctoral dissertation, Wright State University).

65. Palumbo, M. V., Miller, C. E., Shalin, V. L., & Steele-Johnson, D. (2005). The impact of job knowledge in the
cognitive ability-performance relationship. Applied HRM Research, 10(1), 13-20.

66. Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and
more. Annual review of psychology, 65, 661-691.

67. Parrish, K. R. (2016). Applying Self-Determination Theory to Examine the Role of Core Self-Evaluations on the
Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Moderated-Mediation Model (Doctoral
dissertation, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology).

68. Poursafar, A., Rajaeepour, S., Seyadat, S. A., & Oreizi, H. R. (2014). The relationship between developmental
performance appraisal, organizational support, organizational commitment and task performance: Testing a
mediation model. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4(2), 50-65.

69. Pradhan, R. K., & Jena, L. K. (2017). Employee performance at workplace: Conceptual model and empirical
validation. Business Perspectives and Research, 5(1), 69-85.

70. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891.

71. Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and
instruments development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(2), 1-5.

72. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.
smartpls. com.

73. Ríos, M. F., Vielma, R. G. R., García, J. C. S., Aravena, M. B., Vargas, J. D. P., & Díaz, M. Á. R. (2017). Spanish-
Language Adaptation of Morgeson and Humphrey’s Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). The Spanish journal of
psychology, 20.

74. Gutierrez, M. M. (2018). Characteristics, Managerial Skills and Job Performance of Women Middle Managers in
Central Luzon (Region III), Philippines.

75. Robert, C., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2012). The wheel model of humor: Humor events and affect in
organizations. Human Relations, 65(9), 1071-1099.

76. Rutherford, B., Boles, J., Hamwi, G. A., Madupalli, R., & Rutherford, L. (2009). The role of the seven dimensions
of job satisfaction in salesperson's attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1146-1151.

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us

An Integrated Model of Knowledge, Satisfaction, Motivation, Relatedness, 31
and Job Performance Among Municipalities Employee in Palestine

77. Ryan, R. M., &Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

78. Ryan, R. M., &Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation,
development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.

79. Saeed, M. S. (2016). The Impact of Job Satisfaction and Knowledge Sharing on Employee Performance. Journal
of Resources Development and Management, 21, 16-23.

80. Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An experimental study of
the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human
Behavior, 69, 371-380.

81. Sarboini, S., Rizal, S., Surya, J., & Yusuf, Z. (2018). The Effect of Leadership, Compensation and Competency on
Employee Performance. JurnalIlmiah Peuradeun, 6(2), 215-234.

82. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology:
Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 262.

83. Scott Jr, W. E., Farh, J. L., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1988). The effects of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” reinforcement
contingencies on task behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(3), 405-425.

84. Sexton, J. (2013). The application of self-determination theory to employee motivation in Irish workplaces.

85. Shaikh, M. A., Bhutto, N. A., & Maitlo, Q. (2012). Facets of job satisfaction and its association with
performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7).

86. Smith, P. C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes.

87. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models. Sociological methodology, 13, 290-312.

88. Trinh, Q. L. N. P. D. (2017). The Effect of Job Stress And Work Motivation on Job Performance of Employee in
The Hotel Industry: The Case of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

89. Trivellas, P., Akrivouli, Z., Tsifora, E., & Tsoutsa, P. (2015). The impact of knowledge sharing culture on job
satisfaction in accounting firms. The mediating effect of general competencies. Procedia Economics and
Finance, 19, 238-247.

90. Unanue, W., Gómez, M. E., Cortez, D., Oyanedel, J. C., & Mendiburo-Seguel, A. (2017). Revisiting the link
between job satisfaction and life satisfaction: The role of basic psychological needs. Frontiers in psychology, 8,
680.

91. United Nations Development Programme (Palestine). (2017). Local Governance Capacity Assessment in the
Gaza strip, Final Report. United Nations Development Programme.

92. Wilkesmann, U., & J. Schmid, C. (2014, May). Intrinsic and internalized modes of teaching motivation.
In Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship (Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 6-27). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.

Impact Factor(JCC): 3.2176 - This article can be downloaded from www.impactjournals.us

32 Ayman A. Almusaddar, Sara Ravan Ramzan & Valliappan Raju

93. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617.

94. Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using
SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.

95. World Health Organization. (2017). Country cooperation strategy for who and the Occupied Palestinian
Territory: 2017–2020(No. WHO-EM/PME/008/E). World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern
Mediterranean.

96. Worthington, A., & Dollery, B. (2008). Performance Measurement in Australian Local Government. ICFAI
Journal of Public Administration, 4(2).

97. Wu, M., Yang, C., Wang, C., Zhao, J. L., Wu, S., & Liang, L. (2018, January). Distraction or Connection? An
Investigation of Social Media Use at Work. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.

NAAS Rating: 3.09- Articles can be sent to editor@impactjournals.us